Smagmuck_:They weren't killed, they were wounded, one of which was shot in the hand.In which case, they should take them to court for gross or criminal negligence.

Weren't you backing the gun lobby in a lot of other threads? How come you're now opposed to the consequences of the things said lobby stands for? It seems contradictory.

Smagmuck_:Just like those LAPD officers lit up a truck fitting his' description only to find two wounded Asian women inside? How can you vilify a man for firing on innocents when the law is doing the exact same thing?

Because I've got a brain, so I realise that it's not a matter of having to choose between either backing shooting up random civilians like some sort of gun lobby mascotte incarnated, or baking a deranged murderer who's killing people out of revenge.

Smagmuck_:They weren't killed, they were wounded, one of which was shot in the hand.In which case, they should take them to court for gross or criminal negligence.

Uh, the way you write it now, you're denying the people killed by that murderer were killed, and them getting killed, is negligence on their part.

Reconsider.

Ultratwinkie:He put out a manifesto. We know what motivates him. 11,000 words. All condemning the LAPD's racism, corruption, and general awful culture. Culture that started riots 20 years ago. A culture that still lingers on, and people still dislike.

And I'm telling you that's not his motivation, because his actions suggest he's not right in the head. That is his motivation.

If someone starts shooting up a daycare home because little children are a threat to his godgiven right to bear arms, does that mean that that gun owner is a lunatic, or that small children are out to take your guns? Same applies to this case. He may write those things, but his motive seems to be mental illness.

Ultratwinkie:Its no secret the LAPD is racist. Its no secret the LAPD is corrupt and inept at what it does.

Some proof of these ridiculous accusations would be nice. Proof in the form of, you know, statistics how often they screw up, and not like "Here's five anecdotes across a timespan of 20 years, for a police force that handles tens of thousands of cases each year. Clear proof they always screw up!".

The LAPD has a lot of bad history. A lot of it people still remember.

A) the king riots in the early 90s, it still stains the LAPD's image and its relations with blacks. In the riots, the police just retreated. They couldn't handle the riots, and people resorted to guns to protect themselves.

B) Operation big spender, another scandal a year after the king Riots.

C) The Rampart scandal in the late 90s and early 2000s, another corruption scandal. A scandal so big we are unsure how far it spread even today. It also stains the relations with Hispanics, because CRASH officers tended to terrorize Hispanic neighborhoods. The scandal also released criminals into the world because arrests made by the division were considered "tampered."

D) Then you have the recent LAPD violence incidents of 2012, younger cadets with less training lacked the knowledge of what is deemed acceptable force. It reopened the debate over how well the LAPD trains its officers.

D) The LAPD shooting at innocents in a man hunt of one man. Another stain on their reputation.

E) and lets not forget the 2007 Mcarthur park incident, where the LAPD officers turned a peaceful protest dispersal into a cluster fuck that cost the city 13 million dollars in legal settlements. Another stain for the relations to the Hispanic population.

These are just a few of the very public embarrassments the LAPD had. All this in recent memory. The LAPD has a lot to atone for, and the people are slow to forgive. When the LAPD has public incident after public incident, its hard to change their image.

Ultratwinkie: The LAPD has a lot of bad history. A lot of it people still remember.A) B) C) D) E)These are just a few of the very public embarrassments the LAPD had. All this in recent memory. The LAPD has a lot to atone for, and the people are slow to forgive. When the LAPD has public incident after public incident, its hard to change their image.

Okay, so basically I warn you to provide actual evidence, and not five anecdotes across 20 years, and you do exactly that, giving us 5 anecdotes across 20 years.

Alright, so you were just going on prejudice when you claimed all of the LAPD is corrupt and therefore apparently somehow less the victim in the case of this crazy killer.

Anget Colslaw:This is my chance to make this reference! Rambo: First Blood! Anyway, pretty hard to go for the cops here. Especially when the police are the paranoid, trigger happy shooters and the suspect isn't even targeting innocents.

Hmm, yes, it is a very well known fact that being engaged or offspring of someone who might be corrupt is a crime, therefore it's okay if someone gets shot for it, I mean, not like they're innocent.

Remember folks, it's okay to kill people as long as you do it to STICK IT TO THE MAN!

That was rather mean and crass of me, wasn't it? But I simply can't stay serious when people try to justify such messed up behavior. I mean, it's like...if you rob a bank only to make a point how it has shit security (or only because it's EVIL!!!), newsflash, you still robbed a bank!

If you kill people to get at some scumbag, you've still killed people.

Ultratwinkie: The LAPD has a lot of bad history. A lot of it people still remember.A) B) C) D) E)These are just a few of the very public embarrassments the LAPD had. All this in recent memory. The LAPD has a lot to atone for, and the people are slow to forgive. When the LAPD has public incident after public incident, its hard to change their image.

Okay, so basically I warn you to provide actual evidence, and not five anecdotes across 20 years, and you do exactly that, giving us 5 anecdotes across 20 years.

Alright, so you were just going on prejudice when you claimed all of the LAPD is corrupt and therefore apparently somehow less the victim in the case of this crazy killer.

Saying the huge fuck ton of scandals are not actual evidence is like saying mass shootings is not evidence for problems in America.

There is no way anyone can say the LAPD doesn't have a long string of fuck ups behind them and doesn't have to deal with their past. They still do because people still remember them all.

The LAPD hasn't really changed. Its the same debate, the same accusations.

And secondly, if you had any sort of reading comprehension what so ever you would notice I said the killer had said NOTHING NEW. People still hold a grudge against the LAPD, the LAPD is STILL trying to atone for its awful past. Its STILL trying to prove its not full of racists.

Yet when stuff like this happens every so often, how could they "change their image?"

Ultratwinkie: The LAPD has a lot of bad history. A lot of it people still remember.A) B) C) D) E)These are just a few of the very public embarrassments the LAPD had. All this in recent memory. The LAPD has a lot to atone for, and the people are slow to forgive. When the LAPD has public incident after public incident, its hard to change their image.

Okay, so basically I warn you to provide actual evidence, and not five anecdotes across 20 years, and you do exactly that, giving us 5 anecdotes across 20 years.

Alright, so you were just going on prejudice when you claimed all of the LAPD is corrupt and therefore apparently somehow less the victim in the case of this crazy killer.

Former LAPD: This has been simmering for a long long time...there are many "Dorners" out there still at risk of "eruption". Anyone who's been through the BOR (Board Of Rights) system can tell you about it's "kangaroo style" process.

While I dont agree with Dorner's actions, I fully understand his frustration as a result of losing his job in such a system like the BOR. There are hundreds of "sponsored" officer (officers who have staff on their side, on a personal level) and thousands of "non-sponsored" officers who fall to this corrupt, unfair and corrupt system which the LAPD "disciplines" its officers. From the LORs to the NTCs to the OOSs...there are many ways to "save" and "destroy" LAPD officers from within... which category you fall under is determined by the administrators and staff.

The Union (The League) is also part of the problem, but that's a whole other story.

The department agreed to sweeping reforms in 2001 after the Justice Department found a pattern of police misconduct over a decade that included the videotaped beating of Rodney G. King in 1991 and the Rampart corruption scandal, which involved police officers' stealing illegal drugs, framing gang members and committing extortion.

Federal authorities also determined that the department had engaged in a pattern of excessive force, false arrests and unreasonable searches, especially of members of minorities, because of poor training and insufficient protocols.

The LAPD's repution is known across the entire country. Unfortuntely, LA also has the largest concentration of gangs I believe, so the regular law abiding citizens are trapped between gangs and a corrupt police force

Ultratwinkie:The LAPD hasn't really changed. Its the same debate, the same accusations.

And so far you've utterly failed to back that accusation up. They may 'have a reputation', but if that reputation is based on prejudice, irrational hatred against the government and a few scandals that are over 20 years old, it's the people who think that a reputation exists who are at fault.

It's just the usual US culture of conformism and violence at work, as well as the irrational distrust of anything related to the government that some less intellectually gifted Americans often seem to have. That's not the LAPD, that's exactly what Americans want. If they cared to change that, they'd have introduced weapon bans to restrict the amount of violence police work involves long ago, as well as change police and court procedures. But that's not what Americans by and large want, is it? Everything's cool as long as it's being done to someone else, but when it comes to the hypothetical self, then suddenly they need to be given all space and privilege.

Merely the fact that it's brought up in relation to this case like it's some sort of justification is sickening.

Ultratwinkie:And secondly, if you had any sort of reading comprehension what so ever you would notice I said the killer had said NOTHING NEW. People still hold a grudge against the LAPD, the LAPD is STILL trying to atone for its awful past. Its STILL trying to prove its not full of racists.

Blablahb:Weren't you backing the gun lobby in a lot of other threads? How come you're now opposed to the consequences of the things said lobby stands for? It seems contradictory.

When a single lunatic shoots civilians, the majority are outraged.When the police shoot civilians, there's not a peep.

So excuse me for wanting to hold an organization that's supposed to "Serve and Protect" accountable when they start doing the same thing.

Uh, the way you write it now, you're denying the people killed by that murderer were killed, and them getting killed, is negligence on their part.

No, the two he killed are one him.

The two women the police shot on the other hand, are the police's responsibility.

Reconsider.

He may write those things, but his motive seems to be mental illness.

I've read most of it, he states that he's pretty anti-2A along with him being pretty sick and tired of unchecked police brutality.

Some proof of these ridiculous accusations would be nice. Proof in the form of, you know, statistics how often they screw up, and not like "Here's five anecdotes across a timespan of 20 years, for a police force that handles tens of thousands of cases each year. Clear proof they always screw up!".

The irony here is absolutely astounding. But, I'll be more than happy to use my google-fu to find some.

FreedomofInformation:Finally a policeman who's out to get the bad guys and what a good example he's setting to other spree killers.

I *seriously* hope that's sarcasm. Because this person has killed two civilians <one the daughter of the folk who tried to clear his name>, and killed a police officer with three others injured. Whatever grievances one has, the solution is most definitely *not* to start shooting up folks for revenge. It's to go through the proper avenues already established. Killing innocents ain't justifiable. Ever.

Fisher321:LAPD helped prove his point when they fired on two innocents because they had similar vehicles. It seems they shoot first and ask questions later. The police are terrified of this man. Not saying this guy is in the right, but some police organizations are very corrupt.

And you know what? Stop generalizing and painting an entire branch as corrupt based off of baseless conjecture. Is the LAPD a perfect example of how police officers should be? Of course not. But when you, and others in this thread, start saying asinine crap of an underfunded, understaffed, and extremely hated police force, it really raises my hackles at the ignorance of people that don't live in Los Angeles.

Here's the facts for some of you.

This guy was performing badly while under training to be a police officer, who decided to cry out "Corruption!" two weeks after the confrontation with Gettler.

Based off of separate accounts from the eyewitnesses, the officers(Dorner and his superior at the time), the family(In which even the father and Gettler had different accounts), the Internal Affairs unit ruled out Dorner made false allegations.

Dorner killed the daughter and fiance of his own union representative. The same man that took his case to court to clear him of his 'tarnished name' that he says the LAPD causes when they fired him.

Dorner then shot at two LAPD officers when they were doing their duty in response to the manifesto Dorner put out. After that, he shot at two Riverside police officers, killing one of them, by ambushing them as they were at a traffic light.

This sounds more like a man with Delusions of Persecution more than someone who believed they were wronged. If it was just the LAPD he was after? He would be going after them, not the police of a different department, not the family of the man that tried to defend his name in court.

The LAPD's response? Over the top, downright paranoid, and will cause problems as it now leaves an immediate vacuum for the gangs and more hardened criminals to fill the space since they(And other police departments) will be hunting for Dorner.

I never specifically said LAPD was corrupt. I never said he was in the right. I just said by the LAPD didn't help their cause by shooting two innocent people.

FreedomofInformation:Finally a policeman who's out to get the bad guys and what a good example he's setting to other spree killers.

I *seriously* hope that's sarcasm. Because this person has killed two civilians <one the daughter of the folk who tried to clear his name>, and killed a police officer with three others injured. Whatever grievances one has, the solution is most definitely *not* to start shooting up folks for revenge. It's to go through the proper avenues already established. Killing innocents ain't justifiable. Ever.

He is going through the proper avenues as a former policeman and that's to shoot stuff.His ex coworkers show us how it's done.

Ultratwinkie:The LAPD hasn't really changed. Its the same debate, the same accusations.

And so far you've utterly failed to back that accusation up. They may 'have a reputation', but if that reputation is based on prejudice, irrational hatred against the government and a few scandals that are over 20 years old, it's the people who think that a reputation exists who are at fault.

It's just the usual US culture of conformism and violence at work, as well as the irrational distrust of anything related to the government that some less intellectually gifted Americans often seem to have. That's not the LAPD, that's exactly what Americans want. If they cared to change that, they'd have introduced weapon bans to restrict the amount of violence police work involves long ago, as well as change police and court procedures. But that's not what Americans by and large want, is it? Everything's cool as long as it's being done to someone else, but when it comes to the hypothetical self, then suddenly they need to be given all space and privilege.

Merely the fact that it's brought up in relation to this case like it's some sort of justification is sickening.

Ultratwinkie:And secondly, if you had any sort of reading comprehension what so ever you would notice I said the killer had said NOTHING NEW. People still hold a grudge against the LAPD, the LAPD is STILL trying to atone for its awful past. Its STILL trying to prove its not full of racists.

I just don't see how that relates to this case at all.

Doesn't relate to the case? I said he has a motivation because he fucking told us about it, but every single accusation of racism and corruption are nothing new. They have been levied against the department for the last 20 years and very frequently at that. My sources alone show how frequent the LAPD fucks up. Since the LAPD fucks up very often, the public can see this and vilify it just like they did to assault rifles.

How you cannot understand this is beyond me. There is no "justification" here.

And secondly, I have already said time and time again that gun bans don't fucking work.

Ultratwinkie:How you cannot understand this is beyond me. There is no "justification" here.

I don't understand how one can take his 'motivation' seriously when the guy is obviously just another gun lunatic. Although it's good to see you're at least not using it to justify the murders, like some others have.

Ultratwinkie:And secondly, I have already said time and time again that gun bans don't fucking work.

The big missing link however remains evidence that refutes reasons to believe gun bans will work, just like they've done everywhere, and then a reason why it wouldn't work that's not based exclusively on NRA mythology.

Ultratwinkie:How you cannot understand this is beyond me. There is no "justification" here.

I don't understand how one can take his 'motivation' seriously when the guy is obviously just another gun lunatic. Although it's good to see you're at least not using it to justify the murders, like some others have.

Ultratwinkie:And secondly, I have already said time and time again that gun bans don't fucking work.

The big missing link however remains evidence that refutes reasons to believe gun bans will work, just like they've done everywhere, and then a reason why it wouldn't work that's not based exclusively on NRA mythology.

Oh really? Then why does your arguments get rolled every time I see you mention a gun ban?

All you say is "violence lobby" and "gun fanatics" without actually saying anything. Just rhetoric.

America wants their drugs, so drug bans didn't work.America wanted alcohol, so the prohibition didn't work.America wants the option to have a gun, so a gun ban won't work.

Bans don't work, making it legal and regulating it does. Bans are heavy handed and will only serve to make the situation worse.

Ultratwinkie:Oh really? Then why does your arguments get rolled every time I see you mention a gun ban?All you say is "violence lobby" and "gun fanatics" without actually saying anything. Just rhetoric.

They're fanatical about owning guns and lobby for having more violence. What else to call them untill they change their point of view?

This blind repeating of NRA mythology and vague claims about I supposedly lost a debate where we never even heard a single pro-gun argument that could stay standing is a little silly.

And now the same ideological allies are drooling happily over a lunatic murdering innocent people to get back at his former employer, because they blindly hate 'the big guvernment'. I sure wouldn't want to be in the same camp as such people. Someone snaps, starts murdering families of people he hates through asociation and they... actually, defend the guy, just because he's a gun lunatic and his delusion of hatred is aimed at something they resent as well?

It's so weird and distastefull that if you made up this story and the gun lobby reactions of sympathising with the murderer, people wouldn't believe you.

Ultratwinkie:Oh really? Then why does your arguments get rolled every time I see you mention a gun ban?All you say is "violence lobby" and "gun fanatics" without actually saying anything. Just rhetoric.

They're fanatical about owning guns and lobby for having more violence. What else to call them untill they change their point of view?

This blind repeating of NRA mythology and vague claims about I supposedly lost a debate where we never even heard a single pro-gun argument that could stay standing is a little silly.

And now the same ideological allies are drooling happily over a lunatic murdering innocent people to get back at his former employer, because they blindly hate 'the big guvernment'. I sure wouldn't want to be in the same camp as such people. Someone snaps, starts murdering families of people he hates through asociation and they... actually, defend the guy, just because he's a gun lunatic and his delusion of hatred is aimed at something they resent as well?

It's so weird and distastefull that if you made up this story and the gun lobby reactions of sympathising with the murderer, people wouldn't believe you.

And you're fanatical without spouting any more than rhetoric.

Not a single argument? The San Andreas is a pretty big argument. Once that fault pops off, all police and emergency services no longer apply. You have to defend yourself.

That's an argument you fail to offer a rebuttal against. You just run off on a tangent over how guns are "super duper evil oh no." I have yet to see you offer a real serious argument other than vague rhetoric that will "solve all our problems."

Without stats and a step by step plan, that's all it is. Vague sound bytes.

Ultratwinkie:Not a single argument? The San Andreas is a pretty big argument. Once that fault pops off, all police and emergency services no longer apply. You have to defend yourself.

Please first prove that all other human beings turn into mindless pillaging murdering raping beasts whenever any sort of of natural disaster occurs. That is the underlying assumption on which you base that. And it seems unlikely, because ussually you see people banding together and helping eachother when something bad happens.

A few anecdotes of poor people seizing the opportunity to take some things they always wanted obviously doesn't count.

Ultratwinkie:Not a single argument? The San Andreas is a pretty big argument. Once that fault pops off, all police and emergency services no longer apply. You have to defend yourself.

Please first prove that all other human beings turn into mindless pillaging murdering raping beasts whenever any sort of of natural disaster occurs. That is the underlying assumption on which you base that. And it seems unlikely, because ussually you see people banding together and helping eachother when something bad happens.

A few anecdotes of poor people seizing the opportunity to take some things they always wanted obviously doesn't count.

Oh right, when the police and fire department aren't around people just like to help each other huh?

Ultratwinkie:Not a single argument? The San Andreas is a pretty big argument. Once that fault pops off, all police and emergency services no longer apply. You have to defend yourself.

Please first prove that all other human beings turn into mindless pillaging murdering raping beasts whenever any sort of of natural disaster occurs. That is the underlying assumption on which you base that. And it seems unlikely, because ussually you see people banding together and helping eachother when something bad happens.

A few anecdotes of poor people seizing the opportunity to take some things they always wanted obviously doesn't count.

Hurricane Katrina, looters and BANDITS were commonplace

It is now common for the NATIONAL GUARD (that is a military unit btw) to be deployed whenever a major natural disaster strikes. Yes, people do band together, but people also sense opportunity and exploit it, or realize that the law enforcement is gone and now is the perfect time to clear out any grievances with individuals or groups. That is the problem with having such a diverse population, people act in about a dozen different ways.

Hell you even have stubborn old coots who refuse to evacuate a disaster area and stand on top of their roof yelling at the hurricane to get off their lawn...

"I want to prove the police use excessive force and harm innocent civilians by using excessive force and harming innocent civilians."

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black, but at the very least we can all agree he needs to be stopped so that he can't kill any more civilians and so the police don't shoot any more people on accident hunting him down. It's doubtful they won't just kill him on sight, but people will be paying attention to what he has to say if they bring him alive when they find him.

Why is this turning into a gun control argument? They're cops... They are all armed. Even in countries with strong gun control cops are often armed... Even if guns were regulated to an acceptable degree (which they aren't) there would still be shootings and gun violence here in this situation. So... Enough?

FreedomofInformation:Finally a policeman who's out to get the bad guys and what a good example he's setting to other spree killers.

I *seriously* hope that's sarcasm. Because this person has killed two civilians <one the daughter of the folk who tried to clear his name>, and killed a police officer with three others injured. Whatever grievances one has, the solution is most definitely *not* to start shooting up folks for revenge. It's to go through the proper avenues already established. Killing innocents ain't justifiable. Ever.

He is going through the proper avenues as a former policeman and that's to shoot stuff.His ex coworkers show us how it's done.

Should the police searching for him have been less trigger-happy? Yeah, of course. There's no denying that. But, that does not excuse what he did. Killed innocent civilians and ambushed other cops <killing one of 'em>. It's because of his actions that caused those officers to be paranoid in the first place. Obviously it doesn't excuse the police for their error. But the folk who has already killed innocents is the one that's very, very much in the wrong.

And, for the record, proper avenues is never to shoot folks up. Its through either the legal system or through the media with that little concept called using words. Its not through revenge killings. Once someone crosses into that, they've lost any high ground they were standing on. Again, killing innocents ain't ever justifiable.

What are you suggesting? That the daughter and the fiancÚ had it coming somehow? Is this "guilty until proven innocent"?EDIT: Or are you saying that he wasn't convicted of the murders yet and that's why we "don't know", at least officially?

How do we know they were innocent and how do we know he did it?I still don't see how this is any different to the usual standard from the police's shoot first,ask questions later and get paid leave and a slap on the wrist if your wrong.

Well considering that he wrote a long manifesto which he specifically said to the victim's father "I never had a family of my own so I'm taking yours away..."

And as for your stupid questions:

* How do you know you're not just the creation of a giant floating ball with eight eyes?* How do you know that the sky isn't really teal but the Martians use their technology to make it look blue?* That you're really your parent's child and not just a replacement after their real child died?* How do you know anything that you haven't personally seen and proven by yourself?

By the balance of probablities though, we can conclude the victims were innocente until proven otherwise, just like how the justice system of America works. By all accounts though, we know the following:

* He was involved in two seperate shoot-outs with police, wounding two and killing one* He made targetted threats about individuals* One of the people recently murdered was the daughter of the man who failed to to get him aquitted.* He made a threat against the man specifically, stating he would take his family away* His manifesto also states that he will target the families of people he believes has wronged him.

So by all accounts, this man is unbalanced; even if there was truth to his claims that he was unjustly dismissed, his response shows that he's no saint; no matter what you think of the LAPD you can't condone going after people's families. Not to mention that by balance of probablities, an organisation that employes thousands of people can't be entirely corrupt down to the last man, so unless he's verifying the exact identity of every cop he targets, he's already content to kill potentially innocent officers just to prove a point.

So really, how the fuck can anyone look at this man and say "he's justifed" with a straight face? I honestly want to know who thinks murdering and threatening to murder the families of people is in any way not an instant qualifier for him being the worse compared to the LAPD, who aren't going around killing his family and friends.

R.Nevermore:Why is this turning into a gun control argument? They're cops... They are all armed. Even in countries with strong gun control cops are often armed... Even if guns were regulated to an acceptable degree (which they aren't) there would still be shootings and gun violence here in this situation. So... Enough?

The mayor of LA actually wants more gun control because of this.

Even though the guns used were all illegal to to have to begin with, he took them from government armories.